MADISON - Wisconsin Republicans are claiming victory with Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision to send a lawsuit over the state's legislative boundaries back to a lower court without addressing whether the map is constitutionally drawn.

But Democrats say the ruling doesn't put the legal fight to bed as Republicans suggest, and vow to clear any hurdle to get the nation's highest court to answer the question of whether Wisconsin's districts are so partisan that they violate the Constitution before the next round of map drawing.

"The discouraging thing is just the delay," Bill Whitford, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the districts, said in a phone interview with reporters. "We have a road map forward ... I don't think we'll have any difficulty meeting the burdens the court asked us to meet."

Paul Smith, the lead attorney on the case and vice president for litigation and legal strategy for the Campaign Legal Center, suggested more plaintiffs could join the lawsuit as attorneys representing them seek to offer more evidence to prove individuals' voting power within their legislative districts has been harmed by the maps.

He said the goal "is to try and get it done in time for a full and fair redrawing of the map for the 2020 election."

The court ruled Monday that the plaintiffs lacked standing and sent the case back to a lower court, giving the plaintiffs another opportunity to prove they have been injured by how Republicans had drawn the maps after the 2010 census.

Whitford said he hopes to be back before the Supreme Court with a new argument within months.

But Department of Justice attorneys and Republican legislative leaders, who oversaw the drawing of the maps in question in 2011, said Monday's ruling shows Democrats simply don't have an argument.

"I think it is quite notable that they put together a fairly large, well-funded litigation team, had a four-day trial, and the Supreme Court unanimously held 9-0 they did not prove the basis of standing," Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin said. "The plaintiffs here failed to prove up the minimal standing to even bring a lawsuit."

Plaintiffs may use Justice Elena Kagan's concurring opinion as a guidebook as they return to court. In it, Kagan said a plaintiff could produce an alternative legislative map, or set of maps, under which his or her vote would carry more weight.

"Partisan gerrymandering, as this Court has recognized, is 'incompatible with democratic principles,'" she wrote, offering other ways plaintiffs could prove their standing.

Smith, the lead plaintiffs' attorney, said if the case has 20 or 30 different plaintiffs showing harm in their districts the result will be "redrawing effectively the whole map."

Rick Esenberg, founder and president of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, said the court punted on the decision but the plaintiffs were left inside the 5-yard line.

"Kagan thinks they can do it by showing a map which would have lots more competitive districts so the plaintiffs within them are harmed," he said. "That's hard to reconcile with the majority's conclusion that a statewide impact does not (equal) standing."

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said they are confident that with Monday's ruling the lower court "will find the Democrat activists’ case is without merit."

"Democrats have been using the maps as an excuse for their failure to connect with Wisconsin voters," the pair said in a joint statement.

Scott Manley, a lobbyist with the Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce, also praised the decision as a rejection of the "plaintiff’s flawed theories that would have greatly expanded judicial power at the expense of elected lawmakers."

Democratic legislative leaders, who have seen years of losses since the maps were drawn, called on lawmakers to adopt a new way of drawing maps in light of Monday's ruling.

"It is now up to the next governor and legislature to take up nonpartisan redistricting reform," Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh) said in a statement. "Republicans have worked to preserve power and avoid accountability at every turn over the course of the last 7 years."

And Democratic strategist Melissa Moore Baldauff said Monday's decision could have an effect of "of increasing Democratic enthusiasm, which is already quite high, and motivating independent and moderate voters on both sides of the aisle who care strongly about protecting our democracy."

Justin Levitt, a constitutional law expert at Loyola University Law School who also filed a brief with the court on the case, said the court's "punt" shows the justices "haven't really made up their mind yet."

Levitt said he expects the court will want to provide guidance ahead of the 2020 census when new legislative maps will need to be drawn.

"If it (rules) before 2020, it gets to give guidance to the future without actually undoing a lot of districts," Levitt said. "I would think the court would really want that — would really prefer that."

Patrick Marley and Mary Spicuzza of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contributed to this report.